Tag Archive for: permission stage

You are here: / / permission stage

Posts

From Pre-Action Protocol to Permission – Structuring Judicial Review grounds with AI — and avoiding merits traps

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Judicial Review & AI – Part 6

Introduction: permission is the real battlefield

Most Judicial Review claims never reach a full hearing.

They fail — quietly and decisively — at the permission stage.

For litigants in person, this can feel bewildering. Everything may feel unfair. The process may have stalled. Appeals may have been ignored. And yet the court refuses permission in a few short paragraphs.

The reason is usually not lack of injustice.

It is poor framing.

This article explains:

  • what the permission stage is actually testing,
  • how Judicial Review grounds must be structured,
  • why merits-based arguments are fatal,
  • and how AI can help enforce discipline, not inflate claims.

What the permission stage is for (in reality)

Under CPR Part 54, the Administrative Court must decide whether a claim is:

  1. Arguable, and
  2. Suitable for Judicial Review.

This is not a mini-trial.
It is a filtering exercise.

Judges are asking:

  • Is this a genuine public-law issue?
  • Is there an alternative remedy?
  • Is the claim focused and lawful?
  • Is it proportionate for the High Court?

If the answer to any of these is “no”, permission is refused.

Why litigants in person struggle most at this stage

Litigants in person often:

  • understand the facts deeply,
  • experience the injustice personally,
  • know exactly what feels wrong.

But Judicial Review does not operate on feelings.

It operates on:

  • duties,
  • legality,
  • jurisdiction,
  • restraint.

The hardest shift is moving from:

“This decision was wrong”
to
“This decision-making process was unlawful.”

AI can help enforce that shift — if used correctly.

The structure of Judicial Review grounds (what the court expects)

Judicial Review grounds are not free-form.

They are expected to follow a disciplined structure:

  1. The decision (or failure) challenged
  2. The legal duty or power
  3. The public-law ground
  4. How the duty was breached
  5. Why Judicial Review is appropriate
  6. The remedy sought

If any of these are missing or muddled, permission is at risk.

Ground 1: identifying the correct target

Your grounds must clearly identify:

  • what is being challenged,
  • when it occurred,
  • who is responsible.

This may be:

  • a refusal,
  • a failure to determine,
  • a procedural decision,
  • or a constructive refusal.

Vague formulations (“the court has ignored me”) almost always fail.

AI can assist by:

  • enforcing specificity,
  • flagging ambiguity,
  • aligning grounds with your chronology.

Ground 2: identifying the legal duty

This is where many claims collapse.

Judicial Review requires:

  • a legal duty,
  • not just a power,
  • and not just an expectation.

The question is:

Was the public body required by law to act — and did it fail to do so lawfully?

Without a duty, there is no unlawfulness.

AI can help:

  • check whether you are assuming a duty,
  • flag where a duty needs to be evidenced,
  • prevent overstatement.

But you must verify the law.

Ground 3: choosing the correct public-law ground

Most JR claims rely on one (sometimes two) grounds:

Illegality

The decision-maker:

  • misunderstood the law,
  • failed to exercise a required power,
  • or acted outside jurisdiction.

Procedural unfairness

The process was unfair because:

  • no reasons were given where required,
  • no opportunity to be heard was provided,
  • mandatory procedure was not followed.

Irrationality

A very high threshold — rarely appropriate for litigants in person.

AI can help prevent the common mistake of:

  • pleading all grounds “just in case”.

Courts view that as lack of focus.

The single biggest mistake: merits drift

Merits drift occurs when:

  • arguments about fairness,
  • disagreement with reasoning,
  • or dissatisfaction with outcomes

creep into what should be a process challenge.

Examples of merits drift:

  • arguing evidence should have been weighed differently,
  • asserting bias without procedural basis,
  • challenging findings of fact.

These are appeal issues — not Judicial Review issues.

AI is particularly useful here:

  • it can flag evaluative language,
  • identify opinion-based phrasing,
  • and force re-framing into procedural terms.

Keeping law and fact separate (critical discipline)

Judicial Review requires:

  • facts to be stated neutrally,
  • law to be applied to those facts,
  • not blended together.

A common error is embedding argument into factual narrative.

AI can help by:

  • separating factual chronology from legal analysis,
  • highlighting where language crosses the line,
  • enforcing neutral drafting.

This separation builds judicial trust.

Alternative remedy: the silent killer of JR claims

Even where unlawfulness exists, Judicial Review may still fail if:

  • an appeal route exists,
  • or another adequate remedy is available.

Courts are firm on this.

You must:

  • identify the appeal route,
  • explain whether it exists in reality,
  • and justify why JR is still appropriate.

This is where litigants in person often underestimate the burden.

AI can help:

  • structure this justification,
  • but cannot invent a lack of remedy where one exists.

Remedy: what you can (and cannot) ask for

Judicial Review remedies are limited.

You may ask for:

  • a decision to be quashed,
  • a matter to be reconsidered lawfully,
  • a duty to be performed.

You cannot ask the High Court to:

  • decide the underlying appeal,
  • substitute its own view of the facts,
  • grant compensation (save in rare cases).

AI can help test whether the remedy sought aligns with JR principles.

How AI should be used at the permission stage

AI is best used as a quality-control tool, not a generator.

Proper uses include:

  • checking internal consistency,
  • identifying merits drift,
  • ensuring each ground maps to evidence,
  • testing whether each ground answers the “so what?” question.

AI should not:

  • expand arguments,
  • multiply grounds,
  • add speculative claims,
  • generate case law without verification.

Permission-stage discipline is about less, not more.

The court’s perspective: what judges scan for first

Judges reviewing permission applications often:

  • skim first,
  • assess focus,
  • test plausibility quickly.

They are alert to:

  • scattergun pleading,
  • emotional language,
  • disproportionate claims.

A tight, restrained set of grounds signals seriousness.

Key Takeaways (for litigants in person)

  • The permission stage is the real test in Judicial Review.
  • Grounds must challenge lawfulness, not outcomes.
  • Identify a legal duty — or the claim fails.
  • Merits drift is the most common fatal error.
  • AI is most useful as a:
    • discipline tool,
    • clarity enforcer,
    • consistency checker.
  • Fewer, stronger grounds beat many weak ones.

If you cannot state your grounds in calm, procedural language, Judicial Review is unlikely to succeed.

Preparing for the final stages

If permission is granted, the case moves into:

  • full pleadings,
  • possible disclosure,
  • and substantive hearing.

But many litigants will face:

  • permission refusal,
  • or a conditional grant.

The final article in this series addresses that moment — and how to respond rationally.

Call to Action

If you are:

  • preparing Judicial Review grounds,
  • unsure whether your case has drifted into merits,
  • or worried about permission-stage refusal,

You may wish to seek structured support before issuing proceedings.

Regulatory & Editorial Notice (JSH Law)

This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice.

Judicial Review claims are subject to strict procedural requirements and judicial discretion.
Improperly framed grounds may result in refusal of permission and adverse costs consequences.

Readers should seek independent legal advice where appropriate.

Judicial Review: When It Is — and Isn’t — the Right Route

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A foundational guide for litigants in person (and how AI fits safely)

Introduction: why this distinction matters

Judicial Review is often misunderstood.

For litigants in person, it can feel like the last remaining door when appeals are ignored, delayed indefinitely, or dismissed without explanation. That emotional reality is entirely understandable — but Judicial Review is not a general remedy for unfairness.

It is a narrow, technical public-law mechanism designed to correct unlawful decision-making, not to re-argue the merits of a case.

This article exists for one reason:
to help you decide correctly whether Judicial Review is even available to you before time, money, and emotional energy are spent.

It also explains — at a high level — how AI can assist responsibly, without misleading the court or yourself.

What Judicial Review actually is (in law)

Judicial Review is a supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.

Its statutory foundation lies in section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, with procedure governed by CPR Part 54.

At its core, Judicial Review asks a single question:

Did a public body act lawfully?

That is all.

It does not ask:

  • whether the decision was fair in a general sense,
  • whether the judge was right or wrong on the facts,
  • whether the outcome feels unjust.

The High Court does not substitute its own decision.
It supervises the legality of the process.

This distinction is not technical nit-picking — it is everything.

The three classic grounds of Judicial Review

The orthodox formulation comes from Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (“the GCHQ case”).

Judicial Review may lie where a decision is:

  1. Illegal
    The decision-maker:
    • misunderstood the law,
    • acted outside their powers,
    • failed to exercise a duty they were legally required to exercise.
  2. Procedurally unfair
    The process was unfair, for example:
    • failure to give reasons where reasons are required,
    • failure to hear a party,
    • failure to follow mandatory procedure.
  3. Irrational
    The decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it
    (the Wednesbury threshold: Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223).

This is a very high bar.

Later developments have added concepts such as:

  • legitimate expectation,
  • proportionality (in limited contexts),
    but the core discipline remains the same.

Judicial Review is about lawfulness, not correctness

This principle was reinforced repeatedly, including in:

  • O’Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237
    (public law challenges must be brought by Judicial Review, not disguised private actions)
  • Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147
    (errors of law can render a decision unlawful)

But crucially, courts have also emphasised restraint.

Judicial Review is not an appeal in disguise.

If you are asking:

  • “the judge misunderstood the evidence”
  • “the judge preferred the other side’s account”
  • “the judge was wrong”

…you are almost certainly outside JR territory.

Appeals vs Judicial Review: the non-negotiable hierarchy

Courts are clear:
where an appeal route exists, Judicial Review will usually be refused.

This principle was strongly restated in R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28, where the Supreme Court emphasised that Judicial Review is exceptional, not a parallel route.

Judicial Review may only become available where:

  • the appeal route does not exist, or
  • the appeal route exists in theory but is not functioning in reality.

That distinction matters enormously for litigants in person.

When Judicial Review may be appropriate if appeals are ignored

Judicial Review may be viable where the problem is not how the judge decided — but that no lawful decision is being made at all.

Examples include:

  • an appeal lodged correctly but never listed,
  • months (or years) of silence from the court,
  • refusal to consider an appeal without reasons,
  • administrative obstruction that prevents access to a lawful determination,
  • systemic failure by court administration.

In such cases, the target of Judicial Review is often inaction, delay, or procedural refusal — not the underlying merits.

This can engage duties of fairness and legality owed by public bodies, including courts and court administration operating under HMCTS.

When Judicial Review is not appropriate (and often fails)

Judicial Review is not appropriate where:

  • you simply disagree with the judge’s reasoning,
  • you believe the judge misunderstood the law but an appeal route exists,
  • you missed an appeal deadline,
  • the case is fact-heavy rather than process-focused,
  • the application is late and delay cannot be justified.

The High Court is ruthless on this point.

Delay alone can defeat a claim, even if the underlying issue has merit.
Judicial Review must be brought:

  • promptly, and
  • in any event within three months of the decision or failure complained of.

Why litigants in person often misidentify JR issues

This is not a failing — it is structural.

Litigants in person experience:

  • silence as injustice,
  • delay as obstruction,
  • confusion as hostility.

But the court sees:

  • jurisdictional boundaries,
  • procedural gateways,
  • alternative remedies.

Judicial Review succeeds only where the legal framing is correct.

This is where careful use of AI can help — and where careless use can be fatal.

How AI fits properly at this stage

At this early stage, AI is not about drafting claims.

It is about clarity and triage.

Used responsibly, AI can help litigants in person to:

  • turn scattered events into a clean chronology,
  • distinguish decisions from disagreements,
  • identify whether the problem is:
    • delay,
    • refusal,
    • silence,
    • or merits dissatisfaction,
  • map facts against public-law grounds,
  • identify whether an alternative remedy still exists.

AI is especially useful at helping you answer the hardest question:

Is this actually a Judicial Review issue — or am I trying to use JR to fix something it cannot fix?

What AI must not be used for

It is critical to be clear.

AI must never be used to:

  • invent facts,
  • invent case law,
  • generate unverified legal authority,
  • file documents without human review,
  • present speculation as evidence.

Courts are increasingly alert to misuse of AI.
Judicial Review — a jurisdiction grounded in trust and precision — is unforgiving of errors.

AI is a support tool, not a substitute for legal responsibility.

Key Takeaways (for litigants in person)

Judicial Review is about process, not outcomes.

  • If an appeal route exists and functions, JR will almost always fail.
  • JR may be viable where appeals are ignored, blocked, or never determined.
  • Delay is often fatal — time limits matter.
  • The court will not rescue poorly framed claims.
  • AI can help you see the legal shape of your problem, but it cannot change the law.

If this first boundary is misunderstood, everything that follows collapses.

Where this fits in the wider series

This article is the foundation.

Every subsequent post in this series assumes:

  • you understand what JR is for,
  • you understand what it is not for,
  • you are prepared to abandon JR if it is the wrong route.

The next article builds directly on this.

Call to Action

If you are a litigant in person facing ignored appeals, unexplained delay, or procedural obstruction, the most important step is early, accurate framing.

If you would like structured support in:

  • assessing whether Judicial Review is viable,
  • organising your chronology and evidence,
  • understanding where AI can safely assist (and where it cannot),

You may wish to make an enquiry for support >

Regulatory & Editorial Notice (JSH Law)

This article is provided for general information only.
It does not constitute legal advice and does not create a solicitor-client relationship.

Judicial Review is highly fact-sensitive, time-critical, and procedurally complex.
Readers should seek independent legal advice where appropriate before taking action.

Any references to statutes, case law, public bodies, or procedures are accurate at the time of publication but may change.